This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Comment Even though I'm watching the sun rise red through a thick haze of smoke as I type from my Sydney office, I think this nomination is a little premature. Any direct threat to Sydney's outer suburbs is only conjectural and still a day or two in the future. It's not quite as dramatic as the BBC report makes it sound - Sydney remains perfectly safe for now. With respect to those who have suffered the losses, so far there have only been a few hundred properties lost in small rural communities and one death - testament to the good work by firefighters in keeping this to much less of a disaster than it would be otherwise. I'd say if there is significantly increased loss of life, or a major evacuation, such as Katoomba, then this story should be considered for ITN. But not quite yet. --dmmaus (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Dmmaus. This has (most unfortunately) a decent chance of developing into something that could be posted, but it's not there yet. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what scale is normal for bushfires in Australia. But I do know that in the US, when a tiny brushfire 1/1000 the size of which would make news in California happens 50 miles from NYC, the end of the world is often predicted in the next few days. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16 people are killed and 30 wounded by a suicide bomber in an attack in a crowded restaurant in the central Somali town of Beledweyne. (Reuters)
Tunisian security forces have killed 10 people (claimed by authorities to be Islamist militants) near the border with Algeria in a three-day operation against gunmen who attacked police patrols in the remote northern region. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He is the former head of the Tijuana Cartel, considered one of the most powerful and violent criminal groups in the 1990s in Mexico. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A notable criminal figure in Mexico, seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am interested just from a curiosity standpoint if leading a murderous drug cartel gets someone onto ITN but not being Speaker of the House. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not this time, but good observation. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one leader of one cartel who was arrested in the 1990's. Unless he's won some awards or was on the run for years with a whole genre of books written about him? μηδείς (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that's a requirement for RD nominations but I understand your point. I nominated the article b/c I was thinking that someone from a once-powerful crime family would suffice inclusion. I'll nominate it for DYK either way. Best, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The update on the article is excellent. And the fact that he was killed by a clown would make a great full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you now formally withdraw this nom as DYK rules state that anything featured ITN can't be DYK.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I did it correctly but thanks for pointing out my error. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have to agree "...was assassinated by a clown" would be much better as a DYK hook. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good idea. I kept your suggest but changed it to "killed" instead of "assassinated" to avoid technicalities. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to withdraw this nomination because consensus was not reach since it was posted and the article has been nominated to DYK. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but unless some news sources are posted that indicate this is somehow receiving wide news coverage(which I must say I find unlikely) I don't see the notability of this. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - seems important enough. But more input needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any evidence yet that this is "in the news". It is a very interesting topic, and the article is new (obviously), so I suggest that you nominated this for DYK. RyanVesey 17:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IF they find the gold. And I guess we are all going to have to start believing in psychic powers if they do. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we have a News of the Weird section. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is written in broken English, and needs major work regardless of its merits. But I am not sure why a claim that there's 50 trillion dollars worth of gold buried under a minor executed nobleman's mansion would be the subject of doubt, especially if a priest dreamt of it. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy, Medeis. The priest has so far only claimed of dreaming of 0.15 trillion dollars worth of gold. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made a mistake of a factor of 1,000 in my swift estimate of $1,500 x 16 x 1,000 x 2,000, or $48 billion. How disappointing. Will cancel my flight. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought you were exaggerating intentionally, or made a wild guess. In other news, the priest prophesized 2500 tonnes gold under a different palace bringing the total to $150 billion of gold. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed being ironic; the math error was an unintended added bonus. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First off, no news sources are provided to show that this event is being covered in the news. Secondly, the nomination seems poorly made as no nominator name or signature are given. Also, there is no indication in the nomination about whether the article is updated or not. Lastly, there is no comment by the nominator to explain the importance of this event. For those reasons, I am going to oppose this nomination. I also suggest that there be stricter rules on making nominations so people do not poorly create nominations like the nominator did above with this nomination. Andise1 (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of nominations like this are made by newbies who aren't yet fluent in the process. Just as with refs, we don't disqualify the attempt just because the format isn't perfect. This article is updated, but it has other issues (namely, grammar). At least this nomination does have a template, which is easy to expand, unlike that of the Belgian PM of a few days back. μηδείς (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment far more interesting than the Glee kid, but ultimately unpostable right now. If a kiloton of gold is discovered, we have a major story. Otherwise, meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this might actually be a much better DYK nomination as well. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty-five members of the US owned MV Seaman Guard Ohio are arrested in the Indian port of Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu for alleged illegal possession of arms and ammunition. (Zee News)
In London, the High Court dismisses a lawsuit against former directors of the London branch of Bernard Madoff's operations, including his one living and one deceased son. The judge, Mr. Justice Popplewell, spoke rather harshly of the plaintiffs, praising the "commendable dignity and restraint" of certain of the defendants.(Financial Times)
Asteroid2013 TV135 is discovered with an approximately 1 in 63,000 chance of colliding with the earth in 2032. (CNN)
[closed] RD: Tom Foley
closed per nominator request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former US House of Representatives Speaker meets DC#2(reaching the speakership is rare, indicating importance) and possibly DC#1(first speaker in over 130 years to be defeated for reelection to their House seat). Article has been only updated with date of death so far. --331dot (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was just coming to nom this. Not sure if I should support or become an updater. I think I'll update. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason this has been posted without any discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry peeps, apparently there are rules about this thing. Criteria even. My apologies. -- Ynot? 20:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull that this has already been posted is insane. Foley was a minor character as speaker, certainly not the top of his field. He's not a sitting politician. We certainly would post ex-heads of lower houses who died of old age. This is not only wrong, it's an abuse by the posting admin. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being the head of one of the three branches of US government is a "minor" office? I think the recent crisis demonstrates that the Speaker is not a "minor" figure; had Boehner not held a vote, we would be in default right now. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was a minor speaker. There are great speakers and there are poor speakers, and he is at the bottom of the list. You have either missed that point or chosen to change the topic, but you haven't come close to even addressing my argument. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:RDISBARERIGHTNOW. I see it as a bit of an IAR issue, if there's available real estate, we can afford to post those we wouldn't otherwise. RyanVesey 18:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it should be pulled for the time being unless the orange warning can be taken off. RyanVesey 18:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I do not oppose the pulling as little discussion had occurred. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Pull per nomination, but this still needs to be pulled after being posted with no discussion. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have pulled this for now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Suitably updated and notable now. Teemu08 (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. There are about a half dozen speakers whose names people would recognize except for recency; Clay, Polk, Blaine, Garner, Rayburn; with Polk being recognized because he was president. Tip O'Neal and Gingrich would rank up there for influence. But we are surely not going to post Dennis Hastert when he dies, and Foley is no better. Basically a caretaker who lost the house to Gingrich. Have we ever posted a former head of the lower house of any nation's parliament who died of old age or otherwise? μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand you correctly that Foley's being the speaker who lost to Gingrich makes him one of the top of his field? A serious reply would also explain why of 61 speakers just a handful have names even highly educated Americans would recognize, and would name chairmen of lower houses from other nations who have been listed before when dying out of office. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a novelist up there right now. Have some perspective! Surely any speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a more influential person that all but a small handful of living novelists! -- Ynot? 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of it, but my larger point is that anyone who attains the leadership of one of the branches of US federal government is important enough to be posted here. It's not something you fall into. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Have we ever posted a US speaker before? What about another country's? Claims like "the biggest political sea change in the last 20 years" are one country-centric, and extremely arguable even within one country. You don't think electing a black president meant anything? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When Obama was first elected in 2008, the Democrats already had Congress (they got it back in 2006) so that was less of a political change(more of a social change). I can't speak to what was done or not done in the past, I only suggested this because in my opinion he meets the death criteria. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this should stay. The speaker is third in line for the presidency of the United States. He is much more notable than others routinely listed. There is some illogical opposition that has no real basis. JehochmanTalk 21:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Foley's been out of office since 1994, and no speaker has ever ascended by that route to president. To talk about illogical, please name one speaker you know by name who hasn't been mentioned in this thread. Please also name one head of the lower house sitting or not from another nation who's ever been posted on his death. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which is relevant here. Other stuff exists. Tony Blair was technically the head of the UK's lower house of parliament. Further, the lower house of San Marino and other countries is very different than the lower house of the US Congress. If you want to argue that Speaker Foley doesn't meet the death criteria, then do so(as you did above). 331dot (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you may not have read "other stuff". I was responding to the supposed point that he should be listed because he was in the line of succession, not pointing to another article, which would be relevant for the essay you invoke. Your Tony Blair analogy also fails, as Foley was never Prime Minister at the same time he was head of the majority party in the lower house. You might as well say Foley wasn't only speaker, he was a congressman from Washinton at the same time. I suspect we'd be hearing about all of Foley's brilliant legislative accomplishments if he had any (he did manage to be the first Speaker since the Civil War to fail to be re-ellected to his seat) rather than negative arguments that he shouldn't not be posted based on flawed analogies. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to have 'brilliant legislative accomplishments' to be posted to ITN. If you feel that running the lower House of the US Congress does not make one important, there's not really much I can do to convince you otherwise. I feel that's enough to meet the criteria I cite above; if you don't, well, there isn't much more to say. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He was third in line for the presidency, which is almost meaningless. Not to mention this was for just six years over 20 years ago. Think about it: the only thing this guy had going for him was the fact that, if by some fluke the president and the vice-president would die within either of the two four-year presidential terms he served in, he could have been president for a little while. Highly improbable. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He also, oh, I don't know, ran the lower House of the US Congress and decided what went on there. If that doesn't make one important, what does? 331dot (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would have been different if he had died in office, but now it is "just" a former speaker of 1 of two main parliaments in a single country. Massively important for the US, but not enough worldwide... L.tak (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From above... "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have said this was a complaint… But anyway: I agree that we shouldn't disqualify a submission because it only has relevance for a single country; but there is a relationship between the width e and its local relevance in an individual country: in other words: for something mainly notable in a single country the bar is higher than for an event or death relevant to a wider group of countries. L.tak (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Death of a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives doesn't give any convincing evidence on notability for me. I'd have surely supported it if he were a former President of the United States or a diplomat with long-time career in the international relations who could be easily recognised worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 53 Speakers of the US House, not many more than the 44 Presidents we've had. It's a position of significant impact (DC #1) and made him widely regarded as a very important figure in his field (DC #2). – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's not a matter of numbers at all. His position is only third in line for presidency and not one that promotes him as a very important person to be regarded as such in his field. For both criteria you're referring to it's subjective to say that they're fulfilled.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struck by "a former President of the United States or a diplomat with long-time career in the international relations". Which "diplomat with long-time career in the international relations" deserves to be in the same sentence as a U.S. president? Paul Wolfowitz? His death by old age would almost certainly be shouted down by the people here. –HTD 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please trace back your memories to the death of Richard Holbrooke at the end of 2010. If Foley were Holbrooke, I'd have supported this, but unfortunately he wasn't.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Six years as the speaker of the House of Representatives does mean a very important politician. It's comes as no surprise that most people don't recognize him anymore, since his last term ended over 18 years ago. But remember that he held the same office as John Boehner holds now. Even though Boehner's position is more prominent with split congress now, it's still pretty obvious that the Speaker of the House is a pretty darn important figure in the U.S. political landscape. Only more important figures to come to mind are the President and the Secretary of the State. And having held this office for six years? I don't recognize his name either, but on merits alone seems "very important". --hydrox (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really doubt most here are willing to post say deaths of former Indian parliament speakers and such, this is just certain bias raising their heads yet again. And seriously why was Foley important person in his field, I do not see that it is enough that he was a speaker. What sort of important achievements are credited to him specifically? SeraV (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India has a Prime Minister which leads its parliament; I would be more than willing to support posting the death of a former one(being the head of the largest lawmaking body in the world), should one be nominated. The fact that one has not been nominated should not prevent others from being posted. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. A relatively unremarkable congressman other than the fact he was speaker. He's not known for any particular legislation, hw wasnt associated with any change in political directions in Washington, he didn't go on to any notable offices afterwards.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being Speaker of the House, something which only 55 men have been, and the head of one of the three branches of government in the US (all of which are, in theory, co-equal) isn't notable? If that isn't, what is? The Speaker dictates what goes on the House, setting direction in its dealings with the President. Foley got Bush to break his no-tax pledge, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - many of the "oppose" votes above seem to be mislead by the title "speaker" and don't realize that speaker equals president of the house of congress and is the second in the United States presidential line of succession, ahead of the president of the senate. An enormously influential position. -Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support many of the oppose votes here are simply misinformed about the significance of the House speaker. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 19:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea from where you are making up the idea that editors here are misled by the word speaker--there's no indication whatsoever that anybody's confused as to what that office is. It's actually the hight of rudeness to say this should be posted because your opponents are confused, rather than giving reasons why the nominee stands out in his field. No has anyone yet pointed to where we post the equivalent position in any other country. Foley was a truly unremarkable speaker. He is noted for nothing other than losing the house to the opposition and being the first speaker since the civil war to loose his own seat in congress. Please, please, please, for the sake of the children, can we hear of his accomplishments as speaker, rather than that he held the title and attacks on the opposition ? μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was Speaker of the House. What about those few words is unclear? As a politician, this guy is clearly notable enough to be listed in recent deaths. His death was widely reported "in the news". JehochmanTalk 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't just lose the House to the opposition; he lost the House to the opposition for the first time in 40 years in a massive wave election. He also lost his own seat, which is unusual in and of itself. As I stated already, he got Bush to break his no-taxes pledge. His "accomplishment" is rising to one of the highest offices in the United States; you call this "holding the title" but the position is much more than a title. As Jehochman says, this was in the news and this is the "in the news" candidates page. If holding a high office doesn't make one important in politics, what does? 331dot (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for other similar positions, I await their nomination. I can't speak to what was done in the past. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are just making this up now. Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. Foley didn't originate the tax increases Bush agreed to. Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. And if losing elections gets you on ITN, then let's see one other example. Meanwhile, Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. Someone has to be speaker, even though he can be a nobody. The previous speaker, Jim Wright, was ousted on ethics charges, and Foley was chosen as being the least objectionable non-entity available. But still, Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to be President, too. So what? I actually agree with Jehochman that most of the opposes here don't actually understand the importance of the speakership and what they do. You don't just fall into the speaker's chair nor are you chosen at random. You do it through influence among your peers and making deals. You direct what legislation is taken up in the House(as Boehner did in the last couple weeks). If you want to put something in his article that you feel is missing, then do it. I nominated it because it was in the news and this is "in the news" not "find articles that satisfy Medeis". If being the leader of the Legislative branch of one of the most powerful nations in the world (and the House itself is one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, only behind India and the UK's, I think) doesn't make one an important politician, then I don't know what does. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's presumptive to assume that editors don't understand the role of the Speaker. Many just don't think it's important enough, in an of itself, for RD. It's the head of one of two branches of the legislature.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I again ask, if the head of one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, and frankly, one of the most influential in world affairs, isn't important enough, then who is? In the US system, the three branches of government are equal, meaning that Congress (and its leader) is just as important as the President and the Chief of the SCOTUS. I don't think it's as "presumptive" as you state. Without a reason, "it's not important enough" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You state "it's the head of one of two branches of the legislature". That's not important?. We are also forgetting that this is "in the news" and this death was "in the news". 331dot (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From comments above i think opposes are more because he is no longer in office. you would see support if it was Boehner but someone who left office 18 years ago probably needs to be head of state to get more support -- Ashish-g55 05:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone needs to be head of state, then we should write that down. Some offices are equally as important despite the holder not having a litany of policy achievements- the process of what they do is sometimes more important than the result. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had the speaker died unexpectedly in office the dying in office would be likely notable and worth a full blurb. It's simply silly to say this is a case of "don't Like". Newt Gingrich and Tip O'Neal were very notable as speakers. Gingrich will most likely be listed here. It's probably a lost cause to expect people to remember the history. But Foley only got the office because the very powerful (and controversial) Tip O'Neal retired due to age and was replaced by Jim Wright who was drummed out for corruption. Foley hadn't schemed for the job for years and won it on the merits. He was chosen as a moderate who wouldn't offend anybody. He didn't. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per DC#1 the fact that he was Speaker would be enough if he died in office, but as he didn't the criterion is that he "had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." The article contains a distinct lack of information on his impact, legislative/policy achievements, etc. Supporters have been unable or unwilling to provide such information. The articles/obituaries I've read (and I read about 10 of them) didn't provide much either. So unless and until this is rectified, I oppose. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you did read articles and obituaries about him. In fact, the LA Times argues that he is notable because he didn't rock the boat too much; Speakers after him were more interested in politics than actually running the body (his successor Hastert didn't bring anything to the floor unless most GOPers supported it) The focus seems to be on DC1 but there is also DC2. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. This is getting silly. You want us to rate this guy as notable because he DIDN'T do anything really notable? Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did do something. He held a high office that is difficult to obtain. One doesn't have to change the world to be important. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zero marks for (not) reading the RD criteria! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. Did you? If leading a branch of the US federal government does not make one important in their field per DC2, then what does? 331dot (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not notable, even if he held a political office. This nomination is notable, only for the fact that it was posted so swiftly, then withdrawn. Save the diffs people! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for an admin: As the nominator I see little point in continuing this discussion, and I request that it be closed to spare this page further disagreement. If holding high political office in the US isn't considered important, then I guess that's just the way it is, however unfortunate that is. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
We do post UNSC member election. And this year there's more going on with Saudi Arabia declining to accept the seat. Alternatively, we could go with saying that Chad, Nigeria, Chile, and Lithuania got elected. --Tone 16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Security Council elections are ITNR; not sure how the blurb should be worded, but maybe there is a way to mention Saudi Arabia rejecting being elected(a rare event). 331dot (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please post a blurb for the ones who were elected and will take their seats. I'm not sure we can fit all this in one blurb. We might need to have two. JehochmanTalk 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia's rejection of the seat absolutely needs to be in the blurb. This is something that has never happened before and it reportedly "shocked" people inside and outside the Kingdom. See NYTimes. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs I have removed "to accept" from the blurbs as redundant. One declines an invitation. One doesn't decline the acceptance of an invitation. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and boldly added the other electees to the blurb. It is awkward to talk about Saudi Arabia and ignore the others, and it would be yet more awkward to have two blurbs about the same election. Please discuss and I'm happy to make changes if better ideas are presented. JehochmanTalk 13:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks on Shia Muslims killed at least 59 people across Iraq, including a suicide truck bomb targeting at least 15 members of the country's Shabak people. (Reuters)
Islamist gunmen kill two Tunisian policemen in clashes in the northeastern city Goubella. (Reuters)
Swedish archaeologists in Old Uppsala unearth a great number of mysterious posts in perfect alignment for more than a kilometre in what is suggested to be a display of power of a fifth century Swedish chieftain. (Dagens Nyheter)
Nominator's comments: This is headline/front page news around the world. Open to blurb changes. I dated it today as Obama signed the bills just after midnight. --331dot (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The emphasis is on the wrong thing here. What's important globally is that the US will now pay its bills, not that the government shutdown will cease. The rest of the world isn't bothered by a few American national parks being closed. But it would be if international financial obligations weren't met. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is an uninformed view. The shutdown involved far more than national parks, and its impacts extended to virtually every agency in the federal government. Those federal employees still on the job were technically working without pay. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not uninformed at all. Of course I knew that there were more impacts within the US, but to the rest of the world (Does that matter to you? China anyone?) the debt issue as far more important. The posts immediately below support my position. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Major news event with worldwide impacts. I would support adding a mention that the debt ceiling was lifted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Huge news. Agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that Debt ceiling should also be mentioned. -Zanhe (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
its certainly in the news, but link to the WP article on teh actual law that was passed yesterday.President Ted Cruz for 2016Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting this, and will tweak the blurb per comments. JehochmanTalk 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I posted is now the altblurb. Please make any suggestions for improvement. JehochmanTalk 12:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JC, 2 supprots in 3 hours is not consensus whatsoever!"Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belated support I like the alt blurb that was posted. RyanVesey 16:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Pull Except for policeman blocking access to public monuments and land at the White House's request, the government was in full swing, and there was no chance of default. Editors shouldn't be taking it upon themselves to post political items after two supports when it takes a hurricane that kills 100 people days to get posted. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is partisan sore-loser nonsense, to put it politely. Your side shut down the government for two weeks, saw public opinion turn radically against you, lost the political showdown and now are pretending it didn't happen or was insignificant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My side? Does that mean your side wins, nyah, nyah, nyah? Do you even realize how ironically childish your comment is? This political theater should never have been posted either way. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US not paying its bills is not "political theater", it was a very real possibility. Even if it was such, it is still front page news, and this is "in the news". Further, "blocking access to public monuments and land at the White House's request" is just a political statement, it was the OMB that gave the order. They could not guarantee the safety of the monuments themselves and visitors without personnel. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yeah, the local politics are fascinating, but we all knew this would be resolved after the ransom period elapsed. Sadly it's just demonstrated that US politics are currently in a worse state than that of Italy, which is quite astonishing. Otherwise, the "deal" was 100% inevitable. Not one of the US politicians would have wanted to be responsible for it getting worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your crystal ball is quite excellent. Mind helping me choose some lottery numbers? We didn't know anything of the sort. If Boehner hadn't decided to push forward without the majority of his caucus, or if Ted Cruz had tried to delay the vote last night, either of which conceivably could've happened, we'd be posting about the U.S. default right now. Lots of Tea Party politicians did want to default, we're just lucky none of them in the Senate used their power to make it happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we did. Anyway, it's irrelevant now. There are many millions who view this intensely childish behaviour from the US politicians as sabre-rattling. It's pathetic, embarrassing and something even Berlusconi wouldn't have encouraged. Good news, Wikipedia posted the failure to agree, then the agreement, two for the price of one. Systemic bias is alive and kicking! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not post news from the U.S. just because systemic bias exists? That makes no sense. This is major news, free from systemic bias, that impacts the world economy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The shutdown was front page news worldwide; the end of the shutdown was front page news worldwide(what's the name of this page again?)- and it's not like it was a short amount of time between them (a few hours or a couple days). The effect also was not limited to US territory (US overseas military cemeteries were closed, as one example) and potentially it would have affected the entire global economy had it gone on longer. There is no reason this shouldn't be posted, systemic bias or not. As for that, countering systemic bias should not be done by preventing valid stories from being posted. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should include the capitulation of the Tea Party on their demand that Obamacare be defunded. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per Medeis and Lihaas. Premature posting of "the bleeding obvious". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An event that's in the news all over the world, and which has significant economical and political ramifications. --GoldenMew (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support, has long-term, worldwide ramifications. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - big news. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't big news. It's part of a recurring pattern, all throughout Obama's Presidency. We'll another budget showdown next January. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why it was the #1 headline around the world? Because it isn't big news? 331dot (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We post recurring patterns as well. Might i direct you to WP:ITN/R :) -- Ashish-g55 01:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Numerous international leaders had commented on the potential international ramifications of a US default.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least 21 civilians are killed when their minibus hits a land mine in southern Syrian town of Nawa, with opposition activists blaming the Syrian army. (Reuters), (BBC)
The United States Senate reaches a bipartisan deal to avoid default and end the 16-day US government shutdown. The House passes the legislation by 285–144. The bill now goes to the president, who is expected to sign it. (AFP via Sydney Morning Herald), (CNBC)
A Panamanian registered ship sinks off the coast of South Korea, killing 9 sailors and leaving 2 others missing. Coast Guard officials rescue another 8 crew members. (Yonhap)
Divers in Russia recover a 570kg (1,255lb) portion of the Chelyabinsk meteor that landed on February 15, 2013. It is one of the largest meteorite fragments found to date. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Deadliest aircrash of 2013 to date. Laos is a minority topic. --Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As stated by the nominator, deadliest crash so far this year; receiving much coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to this the plane was delayed due to a storm, which i would assume is Typhoon Nari since Nari has been affecting Thailand, Vietnam and Laos within the last 48 hours.Jason Rees (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support worst crash for at least ten months. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we always post fatal commercial airline crashes. -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not always, but thanks for your support. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. SeraV (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks nearly ready, but a citation has been requested for the nationality of the remaining passengers. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I provided a citation for the nationality of the remaining passengers. GroveGuy (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. World wide coverage, and commercial airline accidents are notable and rare in nature. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs Expansion article has two-sentence lead and two section of one sentence each. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lede is of an appropriate length for the size of the article. There are no one sentence sections. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I created the article on the 2013 Women's Draughts World Championship. I think if that article receives some more updating, and the article on the winner has more information added (the Russian Wikipedia article has some more information) then this can be posted. I know there is not a lot of information about the championship but since Draughts (Checkers) is not represented at all in ITN, I think this deserves some recognition on the Main Page. I will try to add more information to both articles but if anyone finds any information or feels like working on the articles feel free to do so. The more people who work on the articles the better chance this item has of being posted to ITN. Andise1 (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not ITN/R, both articles in the hook are stubs, significance/importance seems low. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the article in its present form is too short, DYK is a good option but it is a bit short for there as well. --Tone 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a real shame. It would have been nice to have something to stir up the dull-hearted and dull-headed regulars at ITN, but sadly both target articles are nowhere near good enough to feature on the main page. Better luck next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific evidence that Yasser Arafat may have been poisoned
Nominator's comments: peer-reviewed investigation into the death of a major political figure --—rybec 02:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. This is only stating that there is a possibility that he was poisoned, not an actual determination that he was. As I understand it, the issue is now figuring out how the polonium got there. I'd feel much better about posting this if they were making a definitive statement and not just saying something is possible. That said, this is getting a lot of news coverage. I'll need to think some more before deciding how I feel about posting this. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as too inconclusive. "These findings support the possibility of Arafat's poisoning with 210Po...However, on the basis of this forensic investigation, there was sufficient doubt to recommend the exhumation of his body in 2012. Three scientific teams are currently analysing body, shrine, and earth samples. Because of legal procedures, the date of publication of the detailed results of the exhumation analyses is unknown." Not the forensic team's fault—it has been nine years since Arafat's death. But I prefer to not run this in ITN unless we have it clearly established. Certainly that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article though. NW(Talk) 04:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lack of hair loss and marrow death are significant, the other symptoms are generic, and the best the sources say is "possible". μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although Arafat was notable and his death influenced his people and his country, it is just never-ending story even if it will be established. It is highly possible that there will be counter-claims and other "scientific" evidence. Egeymi (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for obvious reasons. Cannot believe this is even being discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
International credit rating group Fitch Ratings places the United States under a "Rating watch negative" in response to the looming financial crisis. (Reuters)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I'm not quite sure whether Man Booker or Catton should be bolded, so please feel free to change/tweak the blurb. --JuneGloomTalk 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's some longstanding precedence I'm unaware of it, I feel like The Luminaries should be bold. With that in mind, the article isn't close to main page material. RyanVesey 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's bolded, I don't think we should run this until The Luminaries is improved beyond the current microstub. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would be a bit embarrassing. RyanVesey 00:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, only the bolded link is held to ITN quality standards. The alternative opens up a whole new way to force the template to stagnate. - BanyanTree 19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all links should be held to a particularly high standard, but a few-sentence microstub linked in a way that many people will click on it is an embarrassment. If it were something unimportant it could just be unlinked, but in this case that's not a possibility. I'm opposed to it being eliminated altogether, as the prize is for the book, not the author. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support tagged as [Ready], needs posting quickly, alt blurb provided, not ideal, but better than not posting the world's most renown literary prize outside the Nobel.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be widespread damage; will be expanding the article. Küñall (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patience Nothing I've seen yet indicates that this is ITN-worthy, but I'd like to see more news reports come in before supports and opposes start rolling in. Sources are mentioning a possible Tsunami to follow, and it appears like major news sources like the New York Times and the BBC are waiting before they report. The blurb appears inaccurate, everything I've seen says 7.2. RyanVesey 01:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I misread. Sources are saying there is no risk of tsunami. With that in mind, if some of the major sources don't start mentioning this and the death count doesn't rise, this can be considered an oppose. RyanVesey 01:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, early reports I saw on Twitter said it was of 7.0 magnitude, but it was later revised. Sources say there is a death toll (as of now) of four people, and several buildings suffered structural damage. Küñall (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll now stands at 20[1], which I believe is at the lower end of what we would normally post for an earthquake. As usual, the magnitude means next to nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says over 30 dead (and then lists 32) - added the link into sources above. Support article in a decent shape - but could obviously be improved just from that source. EdwardLane (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Let's see if this gets to be posted at this state. There's a bigger disaster a month ago (300 deaths) but that was again ignored at ITN despite having an extensive article. Boohoo. Screw American+British bias. ITN now has American+British+Indian bias. lol. –HTD 10:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Death toll at 60+ plus now. Plus, it's the most powerful earthquake to strike the Philippines (and probably Southeast Asia) in a while. Might as well improve the article and list it at ITN, if only to combat systemic bias. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article improved. The BBC are now giving 73 deaths and considerable damage to historic buildings. The odd listing of aftershocks which appeared since I last looked needs summarising. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to increased death toll and damage to historic buildings. This shouldn't be posted with the current aftershocks format. The article also has no lead. RyanVesey 15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment 93+ people reported killed and 167+ injured according to the article now. EdwardLane (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant earthquake, article seems in good enough shape to post. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb comment: When the blurb mentions "magnitude" it isn't clear what scale is being used. In the past I think we've used the Moment magnitude scale? SpencerT♦C 20:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready this is quite well updated now, and unopposed--it should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Medeis. -Zanhe (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A judicial inquiry is ordered into a stampede during Navrati festivities near a temple in India's Madhya Pradesh state that resulted in 109 deaths and 120 people being injured. (NDTV)
A dry ice bomb explodes in an employee restroom at Los Angeles International Airport. Nobody was injured, and no arrests were made. Terminal 2 was briefly shut down and evacuated. It was the second incident of its kind to have occurred at the airport in two days. (CNN)
Oppose, I find no precedent for the posting of the receipt of this award. He received the award four days ago, so you can also say it is a bit stale. This is the first I'm hearing of it, so it seems that major news organizations don't think it important, and it's certainly not "in the news". The NYT buried it in a short paragraph on an article about Snowden's father's arrival in Moscow. RyanVesey 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ryan Vesey. I'm barely seeing any mentions of it at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I saw it mentioned when i happened, but it is far too much attention to a small award. Almost funny he didn't get the Nobel. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have seen some coverage of this, but this is an award with a specific niche and some political undertones. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The award occurred on the 10 October. This is the same date as the Alice Munroe item, which is currently the last item on the template. This item is stale. --LukeSurltc 11:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support if it wasnt stale. We dont need blatant eurocentric bais to post what is sdeemed okey by them in the Skharov prize. If thats ITN (without dsicssion?),. then this should be too!Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly stale. We just have a surfeit of petty posts regarding non-notable prize winners. The prize recipients should all mature off the board faster than any of the serious news. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose target article is in piss-poor condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: In the same fashion as the other Nobel Prizes, this is also listed as ITNR.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC) --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This should be posted 100-percent.HotHat (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would post this now, except Hansen's article is a mess. It needs copy editing, fact checking, and some references. Please work on that and post here when you think it may be ready. JehochmanTalk 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article we could wikilink to that relates to their research? "Empirical analysis of asset prices" means very little to me. --LukeSurltc 13:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find a suitable article to link to since there are different articles on Wikipedia pointing to some of the seminal works of these authors. However, most of their contributions are only extensions of the traditional CAPM, which appears to be the most appropriate solution for the wording in the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting with link to CAPM, instead of the bios which will match what we did for the other Nobel's and sidestep the problem of bios that are not in particularly good condition. JehochmanTalk 15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to CAPM. Fama and French even had a famous paper in the early 1990s that took CAPM to task with regards to explaining stock valuations, and it isn't like Shiller's work was really just extensions of CAPM either. We really don't have a good article to link to, so let's just point people to the biographies and let them go from there if they are interested. NW(Talk) 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)